Jyoti wrote:Consciousness is not composed of concept, so it cannot be prove or dis-proven by concept. There is no buddhist teaching high or low that is not based on the consciousness as the basis.

This meaning of 'consciousness' in English is also problematic. At it's root, the word is very much associated with the 'concept' of subject/object duality, often by definition. But, I agree that in some languages, there exist terms that are usually translated as 'consciousness' that seem to be free of subject/object duality. In this respect, I think you have a point, Joyti.

If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment

However, as mentioned, the consciousness belongs to the realm of ultimate reality

OK, so you don't see any mistake with the concept of consciousness isn't it?

We are talking consciousness in the conventional realm, and it is also within the same platform, this consciousness can be proven as wrong.

If there is a teaching that can show you consciousness is a mistaken concept, will you believe so and can you drop off this concept?

If you utterly refute these elements teaching, why do you respond to every post on the topic? Maybe you should make another topic on whether or not to accept different elemental teaching in comparison and contradistinction with modern science... Unless you're trying to bring this thread to an intellectual standstill?

DarwidHalim wrote:Wow, they even can propose dark light concept.

When the darkness is seen as the absence of light, now darkness is seen as the manifestation of light with dark color.

Dark matter is not "absent" of the consciousness element. No element is, that's why it is called the superior element. Dark matter is called such because it cannot be seen, and we haven't been able to conceive of how to measure it empirically. Darkness absorbs light, and it is not seen as the manifestation of light. DARK MATTER is not "darkness," shadow, or the absence of electromagnetic radiation. It is virtually undetectable matter. Similarly to light, consciousness is absorbed into the vacuity of the space element/dark matter like literal darkness.

If my personal applied theory is on track, then gross dark energy is responsible for the arising of electrons as we are able to measure/observe them dimensionally.

So, should we see (light at the basis, then energy as the manifestation), or(Energy as the basis, then light as the manifestation)?

Are we the manistation of light? Or are we the manifestation of energy?

No end cycle.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

Son wrote:If you utterly refute these elements teaching, why do you respond to every post on the topic? Maybe you should make another topic on whether or not to accept different elemental teaching in comparison and contradistinction with modern science... Unless you're trying to bring this thread to an intellectual standstill?

The issue here is that the elements teaching has bring you to the level that in reality it is indeed there is this separation - not just at the conversation level.

You can see that cloud.

I can divide that cloud into MILLION PARTS.

I can divide that cloud consists of white parts, dark parts, gray parts, extreme dark part, and so on.

And I can explain to others that Cloud consists of million part. You see the photo? It has dark part, white part, so cloud really has multiple parts. You can see that, so you must believe that.

This is the place where I reject your position.

Buddha separate the teachings into elements for the sake of easier understanding this reality. And you must know here, that it is just in the middle of the journey. At the end, what you have divided will be totally rejected.

Reality can be divided as such and such. BUT, only as a set of model, and a set of model, and a set of model.

To explain this reality, this set of model works.To explain that reality, another set of model works.

So from here you should be able to see that actually the separation is just for the sake to easier understanding the teaching. It is not to make you belief that reality is indeed has this separation.

For the same event, you can separate anything as much as your wish. Like that photo, you can separate it into million parts. But, if you ask I want to separate base on something really specific. You will fail.

If that cloud can speak, he will say you can separate me into multiple part with your concept.

But, whether your concept can really separate me (the cloud) as this particle or not, that is just fully your own idea.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

Son wrote: DARK MATTER is not "darkness," shadow, or the absence of electromagnetic radiation. It is virtually undetectable matter.

Yes, this is my understanding, as well.

Son wrote:Similarly to light, consciousness is absorbed into the vacuity of the space element/dark matter like literal darkness.

This, I must contemplate...

It is the reason that photons always travel at constant velocity, through "space," and why they move with the "fabric" of space while in transit. They are passing through open space channels (external or quantum tsa). Sort of like constantly enveloping and filling a vacuum, the dark matter deliminates or constrains the waves into particles. And beams of photons are generated through a tunneling affect, of sorts. The vacuity of whatever dark matter particles actually "restrains" light into "space." CONTEMPLATE THAT SIR. [side note. I like that phrase; quantum tsa.]

Son wrote:If my personal applied theory is on track, then gross dark energy is responsible for the arising of electrons as we are able to measure/observe them dimensionally.

I have read theories that dark matter may be a source of anti-matter 'leaks' between dimensions. As such, maybe give rise to electrons. Again,

And so you see, I have ventured deep into the waking realm of theory... Silly me.

Don't forget, while busy with all the labeling "motion, solid, etc.", that the entire Universe is vibrantly alive. There is nothing in the Universe that is completely stagnant. All is impermanent, all is constantly changing.

When the darkness is seen as the absence of light, now darkness is seen as the manifestation of light with dark color.

Amazing.

Yes, the anti-photon. Antimatter has the opposite charge of normal matter. Electrons are negatively charged and positrons are positively charged. They haven't discovered the tachyon (antiphoton) quite yet, but that's because it is extremely difficult to detect because of their travel patterns. It's easiest to say, that while photons travel forward in time, anti-photons can be seen to travel backward in time. But that requires a lot of defining and explanation and is nowhere near as simple as it sounds at first.

There has to be some dark matter, invisable, immeasurable but somehow there. They do not know what it is or how to find it. You may like to think of antimatter as all the concentrated silence of space. 'Silence so dense and heavy that it takes on materiality'

When the darkness is seen as the absence of light, now darkness is seen as the manifestation of light with dark color.

Amazing.

Yes, the anti-photon. Antimatter has the opposite charge of normal matter. Electrons are negatively charged and positrons are positively charged. They haven't discovered the tachyon (antiphoton) quite yet, but that's because it is extremely difficult to detect because of their travel patterns. It's easiest to say, that while photons travel forward in time, anti-photons can be seen to travel backward in time. But that requires a lot of defining and explanation and is nowhere near as simple as it sounds at first.

I believe you will find, if you do a little Googling, that a photon is it's own antiparticle. In other words there ain't no such thing as an antiphoton.